0306

The attorney could object that the question is compound -- seeing and hearing are two different things.

If you wanted to be hyper-technical, you could object that the question assumes a fact not in evidence, namely that the witness saw or heard something. I don’t think any lawyer would actually do so. There is an unwritten rule of trials that you don’t have to prove the obvious, and it seems obvious that if a witness testifies she was present, then her senses were working and she would have seen or heard something, even if it is irrelevant.  

Questions? Email tanford@indiana.edu and refer to 0306

What is the prosecutor’s best response? When you think you know the answer, click here.